Important Verdicts On S. 14A Rule 8D + Other Controversial Issues

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

Harsha L. Tahilramani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Law on the tests to distinguish whether gains on sale of shares is short-term or business profits explained

(i) The assessee wonders as to why should she be not allowed her claim of the delivery-based transactions as being not trade, which stands admitted by her qua non-delivery based transactions? However, that precisely defines the controversy which is to be resolved (with reference to and on the basis of the facts), so that nothing […]

HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Various arguments on the applicability of s. 14A & Rule 8D where the AO has not recorded satisfaction, where the shares are held in strategic/ subsidiary companies, held as stock-in-trade, where there are surplus funds and the quantum of disallowance under Explanation (f) to s. 115JA/ 115JB considered

(i) When it is said that rule 8D is mandatory (i.e., AY 2008-09 onwards), all that is meant is where the said expenditure cannot be reasonably ascertained with reference to the assessee's accounts, toward which the AO is to issue his satisfaction or, as the case may be, dissatisfaction, he has no discretion in case […]

Anuj Kumar Varshney vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Bogus purchases: Filing of confirmation of suppliers with PAN and TIN number are not sufficient to prove the purchases are genuine if they are not supported by other facts including delivery of goods & presence of suppliers

The department had gathered the information through survey and search seizure in above parties and they categorically admitted that they have provided entries and not doing any purchase and sale of gems and jewellery. Even then Assessing Officer asked to produce these parties for verification which could not be produced by it. The Assessing Officer […]

Global Signal Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 147: The reasons must specifically indicate as to which material fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the course of its original assessment

In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income chargeable to tax. Merely having a reason to believe […]

ITO vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

No S. 14A/ Rule 8D Disallowance if accounts not examined. Consent fee paid to SEBI is not penalty for infraction of law

Re Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D (i) It is now settled principle that the assessing officer has to examine the disallowance made by the assessee by having regard to the accounts of the assessee and only thereafter the AO, if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, shall determine the […]

Mathewsons Exports & Imports vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

charter hire payment is not assessable as royalty, there is no obligation to deduct TDS and no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made

It is very clear that the payments made by the assessee company were in the nature of simple payments for chartering ships on hire for doing the business outside India. Therefore, the payments do not satisfy the test laid down in s.9 of the IT Act, 1961. When s. 9 is not satisfied, there cannot […]

DCIT vs. Baljit Securities Private Limited (ITAT Kolkata)

Rule 8D(ii) & 8D(iii) do not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade. Loss arising out of derivatives from the income arising out of buying and selling of shares

(i) Both trading of shares and derivative transactions are not coming under the purview of Section 43(5) of the Act which provides definition of "speculative transaction" exclusively for purposes of section 28 to 41 of the Act. Again, the fact that both delivery based transaction in shares and derivative transactions are non-speculative as far as […]

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

In a case of "sogo shosha" business model (high volume, low risk, trading of goods), the "berry ratio" (benchmarking gross profit and/ or net revenues (after subtraction of cost of sales) against operating expenses is an appropriate PLI. To avoid discrimination under Article 24(3) of the India-Japan DTAA, the benefit of no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) (in the cast of residents) for want of TDS if the recipient has paid the tax has to be extended to non-residents u/s 40(a)(i)